Torgian Posted March 18, 2014 Share #1 Â Posted March 18, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) As the title asks... Â With the low light capabilities of the 240, is there really a need for a 50mm 1.4 summilux for low light situations? Wouldn't an f/2 perform just as well? Â Well, obviously the f/2 wouldn't suck in as much light as a 1.4, but again... on an M, which can go up to 6400 ISO (though I believe 3200 might be the best maximum) is it really necessary? Â Although personally I really like that yummy bokeh. But that's another discussion already beaten like a dead horse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Hi Torgian, Take a look here Is a 1.4 ASPH really necessary on an M-240??. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
norbertnl Posted March 18, 2014 Share #2 Â Posted March 18, 2014 No, 1.4 ASPH lenses are sexy and hence they are desirable (other than being merely necessary). Norbert (who loves the 50 and newly acquired 35 ASPH FLEs ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 18, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted March 18, 2014 It depends whether shallow depth of field is important to you. Â Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 18, 2014 Share #4  Posted March 18, 2014 Nobody buys fast lenses for the speed nowadays… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 18, 2014 Share #5 Â Posted March 18, 2014 Imho, a 50 with 1,4 aperture can be well justified : this doesn't mean that one NEEDS the asph... for me, I am still satified with my old unasph that dates to 1962... (but is VERY fine) ; of course, generally speaking, "I'd like to have the asph"... which doesn't mean I feel compelled to buy one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmldds Posted March 19, 2014 Share #6 Â Posted March 19, 2014 I believe you already answered your own question in the last line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted March 19, 2014 Share #7 Â Posted March 19, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...for a given camera, sensor and light value, an f1.4 lens will always have twice the light-gathering capability of an f2 lens. As mentioned above, the f1.4 lens also offers more scope for creativity. If you are in full control of your critical image-capturing decisions, as opposed to the camera making them, then an extra stop is a very welcome no-brainer. Â Given a choice between the Summilux and the Summicron, you will need to decide which lens is best suited to your style and type of photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted March 19, 2014 Share #8 Â Posted March 19, 2014 Well of course the difference is one stop! I can comment that I have had good results at 2000 ISO with my M (typ 240) and also seldom use my Summilux wide open. Nevertheless it is pleasing to have the option if needed. 'need' and 'want' or preference are all subjective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 19, 2014 Share #9  Posted March 19, 2014 Aside from the question of "want", there are just too many factors involved to give an objective answer. Any one of these may be critical for you. - the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. - the smaller the aperture, the smaller and lighter the lens. - ASPH lenses will focus sharp and consistently at wide aperture. - non-ASPH lenses can give an attractive softer focus effect. - each lens has its own bokeh characteristics, which may or may not be what you want.  As with any of these "what lens should I buy" or "what is the best lens of all time" threads, the starting point should be: "what type of photography do I want to do?". The answer could lead you to a £150 1950's lens, the f/0.95 Noctilux, or it could lead you to sell your Leica kit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted March 19, 2014 Share #10 Â Posted March 19, 2014 I have the 50 ASPH lux since a few weeks, and must say I wouldn't wanna be without it anymore, it's so much sexier than the Summicron-M 50mm I have. Â I mean the results, oh and also the lens itself! *geek* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 19, 2014 Share #11 Â Posted March 19, 2014 No. But it's awfully nice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted March 19, 2014 Share #12 Â Posted March 19, 2014 I assume that there are more people that change from a Summicron to a Summilux then the other way around. One exeption if is course the APO Summicron..... Â That answers probably best your question! Â John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted March 19, 2014 Share #13 Â Posted March 19, 2014 At some point in your life you suddenly discover the advantages of good performance in a compact package. Re-enter the Summicron! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcraf Posted March 19, 2014 Share #14 Â Posted March 19, 2014 At some point in your life you suddenly discover the advantages of good performance in a compact package. Re-enter the Summicron! Â The 50 Lux Asph isn't so much bigger than the 'cron. I love mine. I consider it a small lens, but it does everything the 'cron does, and a bit more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted March 19, 2014 Share #15 Â Posted March 19, 2014 John, essentially I agree with you. And I do have both lenses, expecting to part with the Summicron after a very long wait for a Summilux. Yet I didn't, for the reason given. When you reach the point of seriously reducing weight of photo kit to be carried on tour, a 40% weight penalty on just one lens does become a consideration. It is purely a personal choice. Within the scope of the lens, the current Summicron remains a most useful and rewarding lens to have. A similar argument applies in the case of 35mm, 75mm and 90mm focal lengths. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 19, 2014 Share #16 Â Posted March 19, 2014 Hmm, I think the ASPH Summilux is/does feel bigger than the Summicron by a good margin, but it is a margin I am usually willing to accommodate. There are just a couple of Leica lenses I think are 'significant', and the 50mm Summilux is one. I don't go for shooting wide open, so the aperture is irrelevant, I don't go for 'status', but it is just one of those lenses that can delight at whatever aperture you need to use. However, the bog standard Summicron is not far behind, and more importantly nobody other than the photographer will know the difference because they won't know the circumstances of making the image. Â Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcraf Posted March 19, 2014 Share #17 Â Posted March 19, 2014 I love the 'cron too, but I think the small (IMHO) weight/volume penalty of the Lux is worth it. Â I agree with the general point on weight and volume. Probably one of the reasons why my Noctilux f1 stays at home most of the time, much as I love it too. Â For me, the 50 Lux is a seminal lens; with my 35 FLE and MM it would be in the handful of the items I'd retain if the chips were down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay968 Posted April 27, 2014 Share #18 Â Posted April 27, 2014 I know this thread hasn't been responded to in almost a month, but since I recently purchased a 50 lux asph, I wanted to share something. I have been using 50 summicrons since 1972. Love em. I always thought there was something magical to the Leica look when shooting with one in a film camera. Unfortunately, when the M8 came around, I never really felt that Leica look was still there. Yes the images were very nice but never really the same anymore as they used to be using a film Leica. I now own an M240 and find that essentially, the images look about the way they do out of my Canons. Not much difference really. * Until I purchased the 50! Since then everything has changed. I am now seeing images come out of this digital Leica that are distinctive (just like in the old film days). Fact is, the 50 lux is about the best lens I have ever shot with. It is once again making my Leica shooting something unique, something to set it apart from what I can get out of a Canon. I also own the latest 35 cron. It's nice, it's sharp, it works...but again...it's nothing special when shot using an M240 as compared to a Canon with say a Zeiss 21 (absolutely an outstanding lens). I haven't shot with the 35 lux (and may have to try one one of these days)...but the 50? Oh my, what a lens. I had no use for f1.4. I bought the lens after reading countless reviews, hoping it would bring back some Leica magic for me. It did, no doubt. So between the 2? The 50 lux and 50 cron? To me, it's about the Leica look...and the lux does it, period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted April 28, 2014 Share #19 Â Posted April 28, 2014 At some point in your life you suddenly discover the advantages of good performance in a compact package. Re-enter the Summicron! Â I don't use digital Ms but f1.4 is certainly useful on film. That said, and to address the excellent point David makes above, Summicrons are terribly nice. Not long ago I bought a v.3 which I enjoy a lot. While the 50 Summilux Asph isn't a large lens by SLR standards, it isn't what I would call a small lens by Leica standards; it's more medium-sized. My Summicron, on the other hand, is very small and makes for a really compact package with a film M with which I can happily shoot at 1/8 indoors with Tri-X. That being said, by using one of my Summiluxes (there, I admitted...) I will usually have more blur-free keepers. Â Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted April 28, 2014 Share #20  Posted April 28, 2014 oh yes  find out what love to an inanimate object can be .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.